Abstract
Education 4.0 is a model to meet the demands of Industry 4.0. This is achieved by developing competencies during the learning process that will later be used in Industry 4.0. The structural model proposed in this work has four components: Cloud Computing infrastructures (applied in the COVID-19 confinement period), active hybrid methodologies (applicable in face-to-face, online, and blended learning mode), technologies (through a technological ecosystem), and horizontal 4.0 competencies. One of the main factors differentiating industrial innovation from educational innovation in teaching is its scope. While the scope of industrial innovation is global (market sector), that of educational innovation in teaching is local (in the subject itself). This approach has several effects on educational innovation in teaching compared to industrial innovation: there is a great deal of repetition of experiences, the advances are not immediately incorporated into other educational contexts, and the impact is local. This paper analyzes evidence to rethink the scope of educational innovation in teaching, developing it under a global vision but applying it locally. The study was carried out utilizing a survey of teachers from different educational levels (university and non-university) and different countries. They were asked about the impact of student inactivity on learning and the indicators that, in their opinion, allow measuring the success of educational innovation to promote active learning. The responses indicate that the education sector has a shared vision of the impact of inactivity on learning and of the measurement indicators. The conclusion is that innovation applied to a specific academic subject can be approached globally across the entire education sector.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Acuna-Opaz, C., & Castillo-Vergara, M. (2018). Barriers to non-technological innovation: Impact on business performance in an emerging economy. Contaduria y Administracion, 63, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.22201/fca.24488410e.2018.1383.
Alonso de Castro, M. G., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2022). Successful educational methodologies: Erasmus+ projects related to e-learning or ICT. Campus Virtuales, 11, 95–114. https://doi.org/10.54988/cv.2022.1.1022.
Ausubel, D. P. (1969). A cognitive theory of school learning. Psychology in the Schools, 6, 331–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(196910)6:4%3c331::AID-PITS2310060402%3e3.0.CO;2-W.
Bhaskaran, S. (2006). Incremental innovation and business performance: Small and medium-size food en-terprises in a concentrated industry environment. Journal of Small Business Management, 44, 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2006.00154.x.
Conde, M. A., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., & Sein-Echaluce, M. L. (2017). Can we apply learning analytics tools in challenge based learning contexts? In P. Zaphiris, & A. Ioannou (Eds.), Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Technology in Education. 4th International Conference, LCT 2017. Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9–14, 2017. Proceedings, Part II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 242–256.
Conde-González, M. Á., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Rodríguez-Conde, M. J., Alier, M., & García-Holgado, A. (2014). Perceived openness of learning management systems by students and teachers in education and technology courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 517–526.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.023.
Dewey, J. (1929). Experience and nature. https://archive.org/details/experienceandnat029343mbp.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education; an introduction to the philosophy of education. https://archive.org/details/democracyeducati00deweiala.
Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). APFT: Active peer-based Flip Teaching. In Proceedings TEEM’17: Fifth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (10–20 October 2017, Cadiz, Spain). ACM, NY, USA.
Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2021). An overview of passive students’ characteristics. In F. J. García-Peñalvo (Ed.), Proceedings TEEM’21: Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (Barcelona, Spain, October 27th–29th, 2021). ICPS: ACM International Conference Proceedings Series. ACM, New York, USA, pp. 260–265.
Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., & Sein-Echaluce, M. L. (2018). Método MAIN para planificar, aplicar y divulgar la innovación educativa. Education in the Knowledge Society, 19, 83–101. https://doi.org/10.14201/EKS201819283101.
Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). Integration of the methods CBL and CBI for their application in the management of cooperative academic resources. In 2016 International Symposium on Computers in Education, SIIE 2016: Learning Analytics Technologies.
Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2018). Main: Method for applying innovation in education. In: Proceedings TEEM’18. Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (Salamanca, Spain, October 24th-26th, 2018). ACM. Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 806–813.
Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2019a). Impact indicators of educational innovations based on active methodologies. In Proceedings TEEM’19: Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 763–769.
Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2019b). Indicadores de participación de los estudiantes en una metodología activa. In M. L. Sein-Echaluce, A. Fidalgo-Blanco, & F. J. García-Peñalvo (Eds.), Aprendizaje, Innovación y Cooperación como impulsores del cambio metodológico. Proceedings CINAIC 2019b (9–11 de Octubre de 2019b, Zaragoza, España). Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Zaragoza, pp. 596–600.
García-Peñalvo, F. J., Alarcón, H., & Dominguez, A. (2019). Active learning experiences in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 35, 305–309.
Infante-Moro, A., Infante-Moro, J. C., & Gallardo-Pérez, J. (2020). The employment possibilities of the internet of things in the hotel sector and its training needs. Education in the Knowledge Society, 21.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2006). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. 3rd edition. Interaction Book Company, Edina, USA.
Khailova, L. (2017). Flipping library information literacy sessions to maximize student active learning: toward articulating effective design and implementation principles. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56, 150–155. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.56n3.150.
Landau, R., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. The National Academies Press.
Llorens-Largo, F., Gallego-Duran, F. J., Villagra-Arnedo, C. J., et al. (2016). Gamification of the learning process: Lessons learned. Revista Iberoamericana De Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje, 11, 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2016.2619138.
Møen, J. (2005). Is mobility of technical personnel a source of R&D spillovers? Journal of Labor Economics, 23. https://doi.org/10.1086/425434.
Moncada, Á. F., Montoya Monsalve, J. N., & Ordóñez Perdrosa, S. R. (2019). Desarrollo de un modelo de competitividad para la consolidación del clúster aeroespacial colombiano. In I. T. Muñoz Martínez (Ed.), La Gestion de organizaciones en Colombia. Encuentros FCAEC, Bogotá, Colombia, pp. 35–46.
Morales Carbajal, R., & Villa Angulo, C. (2019). Role playing games for mathematics education. Education in the Knowledge Society, 20, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks2019_20_a7.
Mugge, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2013). Seeking the ideal level of design newness: Consumer response to radical and incremental product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30.https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12062.
OECD and Statistical Office of the European Communities. (2005). Oslo Manual 2005. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation, 3rd ed. OECD Publishing.
OECD/Eurostat. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018. Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg.
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor—an emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14, 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0.
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/TEA.3660020306.
Sancho, R. (2007). Innovación industrial. Revista Española De Documentación Científica, 30, 553–564. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2007.v30.i4.405.
Schmookler, J. (2013). Invention and economic growth. Harvard University Press.
Sein-Echaluce, M. L., Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., & Alves, G. (2017). Technology behaviors in education innovation. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 596–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.049.
Sein-Echaluce, M. L., Fidalgo Blanco, Á., & García Peñalvo, F. J. (2014). Buenas prácticas de Innovación Educativa: Artículos seleccionados del II Congreso Internacional sobre Aprendizaje, Innovación y Competitividad, CINAIC 2013. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 44.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Mind and Society. Harvard University Press, pp. 79–91.
Acknowledgements
This research was partially funded by the Spanish Government Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through the AVisSA project grant number (PID2020-118345RB-I00). The authors would like to thank the research groups EtnoEdu of the University of Zaragoza, GRIAL of the University of Salamanca, and LITI of the Technical University of Madrid for their support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M.L., García-Peñalvo, F.J. (2022). Global Indicators for Measuring the Learning of the Active Students. In: García-Peñalvo, F.J., Sein-Echaluce, M.L., Fidalgo-Blanco, Á. (eds) Trends on Active Learning Methods and Emerging Learning Technologies. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7431-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7431-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-7430-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-7431-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)